Renewable EnergyDiscussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

“If the magnetic field is provided by a permanent magnet, the generator works regardless of whether the magnet is fixed to the stator or rotates with the disc.”

Ok, hold on now... This is like saying a bicycle dynamo works regardless of whether it is connected to the frame or the wheel itself. Crazy right? The wikipedia article does not go into further detail of course.

What we know is that a current I flowing though a wire in the presence of a magnet with magnetic field B will cause a Lorentz force on the wire and an equal and opposite force on the magnet itself.

Also we know that a moving wire in the presence of a magnet with magnetic field B will cause a Lorentz force on the electrons in the wire and thus an electromotive force with an equal and opposite force on the magnet itself.

So what does that mean for the Homopolar Generator? By the rotating motion of the disc an electromotive force will be induced upon the electrons in the disc and once a current flows by closing the loop a Lorentz force will act upon the disc and the magnet. In case where the magnet is stationary it will slow down the disc. In case where the magnet is rotating with the disc a torque will be created between the disc and the magnet which will cancel itself out.

Can it be that simple? I believe so. We just have been distracted by so much BS that we have simply overlooked this simple way of getting free energy.

Now there is a small catch to this. The original generator produces very low voltage and very high current, making it quite difficult to get the energy off the disc into a stationary frame. It's like trying to make a transformer work with just one loop of wire on the primary.

This is where I had an idea. Why not use a coil instead of a disc? Like this:

[See Picture]

By using opposing fields on the left and right side the electromotive forces will add up instead of cancel out.

This should give twice the voltage per coil loop compared to a traditional generator with a single disc.

“If the magnetic field is provided by a permanent magnet, the generator works regardless of whether the magnet is fixed to the stator or rotates with the disc.”

Ok, hold on now... This is like saying a bicycle dynamo works regardless of whether it is connected to the frame or the wheel itself. Crazy right? The wikipedia article does not go into further detail of course.

What we know is that a current I flowing though a wire in the presence of a magnet with magnetic field B will cause a Lorentz force on the wire and an equal and opposite force on the magnet itself.

Also we know that a moving wire in the presence of a magnet with magnetic field B will cause a Lorentz force on the electrons in the wire and thus an electromotive force with an equal and opposite force on the magnet itself.

So what does that mean for the Homopolar Generator? By the rotating motion of the disc an electromotive force will be induced upon the electrons in the disc and once a current flows by closing the loop a Lorentz force will act upon the disc and the magnet. In case where the magnet is stationary it will slow down the disc. In case where the magnet is rotating with the disc a torque will be created between the disc and the magnet which will cancel itself out.

Can it be that simple? I believe so. We just have been distracted by so much BS that we have simply overlooked this simple way of getting free energy.

Now there is a small catch to this. The original generator produces very low voltage and very high current, making it quite difficult to get the energy off the disc into a stationary frame. It's like trying to make a transformer work with just one loop of wire on the primary.

This is where I had an idea. Why not use a coil instead of a disc? Like this:

[See Picture]

By using opposing fields on the left and right side the electromotive forces will add up instead of cancel out.

This should give twice the voltage per coil loop compared to a traditional generator with a single disc.

"If the lines of flux are imagined to originate in the magnet, then they would be stationary in the frame of the magnet, and rotating the disc relative to the magnet, whether by rotating the magnet or the disc, should produce an EMF, but rotating both of them together should not."

"If the lines of flux are imagined to originate in the magnet, then they would be stationary in the frame of the magnet, and rotating the disc relative to the magnet, whether by rotating the magnet or the disc, should produce an EMF, but rotating both of them together should not."

"If the magnetic field is provided by a permanent magnet, the generator works regardless of whether the magnet is fixed to the stator or rotates with the disc."

Max

Hi Max,

You missed my point. Even if you could somehow keep the magnet rings stationary, you would still have a net zero flux cutting the rotating disc (can you still call the rotor a disc?). In other words, an equal amount of flux cuts the conductor in both directions therefore cancelling induction. There needs to be a flux return path around or outside the armature (conductor or disc). This has nothing to do with Faraday's paradox.

bi

{edit}
Notice the back iron in this diagram from your wikipedia reference.

The magnetic path or circuit is completed outside of the rotor space. I think (but not sure) that would be the case with the Faraday paradox also.

Sure. Maybe it was stupid or off-topic. Faraday disc is a homopolar dynamo meaing only one pole. Of course there is no such thing as a one pole magnet but what is meant is that flux crosses the air gap in only one direction. So the magnetic circuit is completed without a second "cutting" of the armature. This unique topology produces a true DC (direct current or non-alternating current). The downside is the necessarily low generated voltage.

Machine designers soon figured out how to utilize the return flux path by cutting thru the armature twice resulting in a pair of poles with areas on the armature of flux in opposite directions. Hence a multipolar dynamo. No longer a homopolar Faraday disc. A consequence on multiple poles is AC. So the the commutator was developed. Soon multiple turn armature coils delivered higher generated voltage.

You just bumped into the classical reason the Faraday disc isn't used these days except in a few applications requiring very high DC like thousands of amperes at just a few volts. I've always been fascinated with the things. Never built one, but might try to put together something to play with. Got some copper sheet.

I took a look at DePalma. Like so many of these things, there fails to be an easily found explanation of the OU or FE claim. It appears he had several substantial prototypes. Why then no presentation of performance testing? Just vague claims like caloric output exceeded electric input power or something along those lines. I mean if the guy has something, do some useful work with it and show the world.

Unfortunately the "Classic" Theories on Magnetism, (prevailing up to now) basically the "Single Flow" B Field Directional Vector Theory, from North to South, (No South to North) will fail to give a clear, factual answer to this interesting Machine...:

[IMG][/IMG]

As their only recourse would be to use the "same ol'"...about "cutting "the imaginary" lines of force"...

Regardless of the several technique's and developments to see the ACTUAL MAGNETIC FIELD, besides the primitive Iron Filings...where ALL of these advanced methods clearly show a "CENTER" differentiating from their extremes or "Poles", which outlines clearly in ALL of them...they "insist" on having the Single Flow prevailing...Not recognizing there IS an ABSOLUTE DEFINED CENTER to every Magnetic Field where forces emanate and discharge.

The N-Machine was a very out loud demonstration of this device:

[IMG][/IMG]

This principle to obtain Electric Flow or EMF, would deliver a very simple Explanation if we recognize the Modern Theory about Magnetic Fields:

[IMG][/IMG]

Any Magnetic Field (whether from PM or EM) have SEVERAL "PARTIAL CIRCULAR SPINS" which pertain to each "N-S" Polarization.
Each "Spin" configures a Circular Shape Geometry (seen as elliptical on above diagram), they emanate from the center of Field, (Equatorial) bursting out through each pole configuring its Spatial Spin (where BOTH Poles Spin in the SAME Direction)...

To then "Discharge" back to the center of Field, on the same area for both operations, Centrifugal and Centripetal.

Each Pole produces a Higher Magnetic Pressure (Centrifugal) at their Spatial "Corona's" (top)...While the Center "Accretion Disc" where all Circular Spins discharge towards...configure the LOWER PRESSURE ZONE or DISC PLANE.

Watching my Video about this would help visualize the Geo:

Now, bolt down to simplicity of the explanation...No matter how fast you turn this whole assembly of magnets and disc, in a later design, where all components rotate...

The Magnetic Field will be completely STATIC, meaning standing still related to the spinning components, However, still performing its Centripetal-Centrifugal "LOCAL" Spins.

What happens here is simple...the Magnet or Electromagnet Material, PLUS the Copper Disc, will serve as "The Moving CONDUCTOR"...where Classic Theory will say "cutting their "Single Flow" or B Field vector...

But also they have tested this Machine by setting brushes on both sides of the conducting shaft...and it happens that at both ends both connected to center as positive...Both Meters show exactly same Electric Flow...:

[IMG][/IMG]

Now, How would the Classic Magnetism Theory of a Single Flow would explain such result?

Note they always "show" the brush connection on the "North Side"...

[IMG][/IMG]

If there would be a Single Magnetic Flow...there should NOT be the same Meter Measurements on both extremes of shaft...Why?...Because I can understand North Emissions (or B Field Out) would define the Negative Brush...But then South, -according to Single Flow- should reflect the Positive End, where flow is Returning and Not emanating...

Same way "they" almost always show Magnetic Repulsion ALSO on the North Side...:

And so...according to Single Flow, Two South Poles should "Attract" and not repulse, when looking at vector's directions:

Back on Faraday Disc...High Amps is a result of Conductor VERY Low Resistance, which is a Disc, Shaft and Magnets Embodiment...no Amp Turns here collecting Magnetic Spins...So, since there is no "Defined Length" from and to...Voltage is very Low.

But I am SO sure Bistander will come up here and give me one of his explanations...defending Classic Theory...like there is no actual "Magnetic flow"...but flux presence...right Bi?...

I will be waiting for your response soon...

Regards

Ufopolitics

__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

But also they have tested this Machine by setting brushes on both sides of the conducting shaft...and it happens that at both ends both connected to center as positive...Both Meters show exactly same Electric Flow...:

[IMG][/IMG]

Now, How would the Classic Magnetism Theory of a Single Flow would explain such result?

Note they always "show" the brush connection on the "North Side"...

[IMG][/IMG]

If there would be a Single Magnetic Flow...there should NOT be the same Meter Measurements on both extremes...Why?...Because I can understand North Emissions (or B Field Out) would define the Negative Brush...But then South, -according to Single Flow- should reflect the Positive End, where flow is Returning and Not emanating...

Hi Ufo,

There is nothing inconsistent there with conventional theory. I have no idea what "single flow" relates. On the Faraday disc, the brush could be above or below or both. It's arbitrary. And positive/negative is determined similar to the right hand rule; no problem there. You can believe in your swirling center emanating magnetism if you like but I don't buy into it. I don't see a place where classical theory fails here, even in the paradox. I see where you don't understand or misinterprete classical theory like S poles repelling each other.

Can't You "still" NOT see a Single Flow on all above images, from N to S?

Clearly and ALWAYS represented from North to South?

Isn't an Arrow and a Line or curve represent a Directional Vector Indication of a Flow?...if not, then why put an "arrow" there?

...Even the Extraterrestrials have been trying to let us know how wrong we are by that single flow concept on Crop Circles......:

...There is no worst blindness than those who refuse to see, by their own will...Paraphrasing from an old proverb:

Quote:

“There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn’t want to see. There is no worse deaf man than the one who doesn’t want to hear. And there is no worse madman than the one who doesn’t want to understand.” -Ancient Proverb

Regards

Ufopolitics

__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Isn't an Arrow and a Line represent a Directional Vector Flow...if not, then why put an "arrow" there?

...There is no worst blindness than those who refuse to see, by their own will...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

There is no flow in the magnetic field. It is static. It is 3-dimensional represented 2-dimensionally in your post. Also represented by lines. Arrow heads are drawn on those lines to represent the direction of the B vector at each point along the line. Arrows do not indicate flow. A vector quantity is often represented by an arrow where the length of the shaft is the magnitude and the orientation in space of the shaft is the orientation of the vector quantity with the arrow head indicating the polarity (positive or negative). Vector representation of the magnetic B field has nothing to do with motion of the B field.

We've been through this before. You don't see it that way. Fine. Look at it however you want. But I object your false statements concerning classical. Opinions are fine. Misleading statements as you are prone to make need to be challenged. I think we stray off topic. Let the OP carry on.

the thing that gets me about theory when you are playing on the edge of what you can predict is that theory may not tell you much.
so I built what the original poster suggested. (magnets stationary and coil spinning)
I got 0.000V and 0.000A out of it.
test setup still set up (and will be for a few days) if anyone has any requests to try on it.

A magnetic flux can only be seen as a wormhole from a higher pressure dimension/hyperspace/counter-space. That there is pressure, hence movement, is manifest since the field/flux come from the precise center of a magnet and collapse back in upon themselves. Evidence goes beyond the work of Ufopolitics in this regard and is empirical. That we cannot at present yet quantify what the magnetic flux material is, and hence not detect movement, does not invalidate a presumption that there is movement, for the evident logic behind the idea of a moving cycling field is nearly irrefutable: It only appears to not be moving but which is illogical. Logic says it is moving. Which is it and does it matter?

How can a magnetic flux field be a static object like a tree in the front yard because that defies logic. Once grown a tree doesn't simply disappear because we cut the roots. That's not logical deduction. Hence a force of unknown matter is what constitutes a flux field. The idea that this may be the case is reflected in the design whereby the ARV's crew compartment is itself a sphere. The sphere is the strongest geometric form against an outside uniform pressure like a liquid. Further, is it not so that it is the movement of electrons over time which creates an electromagnetic field ? If that is true than a magnetic flux would seem to be, and by definition; a moving field.

Alternatively: If flux were considered to be a fluid then there comes about the potential to see this two ways, for a fluid may be both static or moving, and which is always affected by the medium it is in contact with.
Gravity, which of course magnetism is associated with, makes the most sense when seen as a liquid. Can something be both static and yet again free to change and move: Yes, a fluid can do this.

the thing that gets me about theory when you are playing on the edge of what you can predict is that theory may not tell you much.
so I built what the original poster suggested. (magnets stationary and coil spinning)
I got 0.000V and 0.000A out of it.
test setup still set up (and will be for a few days) if anyone has any requests to try on it.

Hi spacecase0,

You built this? I'd like to see it. How did you support magnets inside the coil?

Hi bi!
Why do you want to know if the inner magnets spins or not? (hypothetically Q.) . . And an answer just from ME . . now, when i have my (UO-tinkering) summer intermission. My brain is set to just over idle now. But eyes are open! . But I come to think of this: Magnetic Transmission Theory or similar . . and This:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE

I may have omitted the center magnets, the magnetic field is the same with or without them (right?), so I did not give it a second thought until your question...
think I should rebuild it with the magnets in the center ?
and if I did rebuild it, they would be spinning on the shaft with the rest of the center, either that or it would take to much time to build and I would likely never get around to it.

Say he was able to support the ring magnets inside the coil with non-magnetic bearings, would those interior magnets rotate with the coil or stay stationary with respect to the outer magnets?

Regards,

bi

OK, first of all the info is lacking in the original schematic so flying by the seat of my pants I tossed this together for general laughter and insults.
*

Now Then>>>>
What would be wrong with simply doing what you suggest? I don't see securing the magnets as extensively problematic, but never say never right?

In this sketch it's envisioned that the magnets are ring magnets and which would then be mounted on a wooden dowel and secured with wooden pins or cardboard rings epoxied/glued to the dowel itself, with the inner magnets placed before the winding.

OK, first of all the info is lacking in the original schematic so flying by the seat of my pants I tossed this together for general laughter and insults.
*

Now Then>>>>
What would be wrong with simply doing what you suggest? I don't see securing the magnets as extensively problematic, but never say never right?

In this sketch it's envisioned that the magnets are ring magnets and which would then be mounted on a wooden dowel and secured with wooden pins or cardboard rings epoxied/glued to the dowel itself, with the inner magnets placed before the winding.

But that is different from the OP's diagram. His coil turns do not span the shaft as you show.

The OP design can be built although difficult (likely expensive). You'd always have some bearing friction acting to rotate the inner magnet rings. Like I posted previously, the OP configuration will not generate. That is regardless of inner magnet rotation or not. It was simply an academic question put to seaad (mostly) to needle him (have some fun).

The other night this diagram popped into my head. I remembered that part around t & t being a Faraday disc like the one Tesla patented, but thinking it'd makes no sense if the power going through it were AC. I thought that if it used an electromagnet instead of permanent magnets & were wired in series with the disc, the disc should stay rotating in the same direction since both the current in the disc & the electromagnets would reverse at the same time. Using it as the inductor in your plasma ignition system, it might make for an interesting pulse-frequency modulated motor. The brush could even be a spark-gap. There's probably some big flaw to this that I'm overlooking, like eddy currents, but it I had fun thinking about it before bed.

According to this video every time induction takes place, the common factor is, the power pickup brushes are moving relative to the disk. Usually induction is described by magnetic fields changing relative to the conductor.

I want to use an analogy, that likens how a standard generator works, to a person rowing a boat. To set up a stroke cycle the person has to lean forward so the oars go back, and are then poised to enter the water. Then the stroke cycle begins, the paddles go into the water, the person pulls back, and when the paddles have moved forward as far as they can go they are removed from the water. While the paddles are moving in the water energy is being transferred into propulsion. At the end of the cycle a discrete amount of energy has been transferred, no more no less. The person cant just hold the paddles there and hope more energy is going to be transferred, the reset condition needs to take place.

With a standard generator a similar thing sort of happens, the magnets cant just be held over the pole of the pickup coil and then be expected to continue transferring energy into the system. The reset condition needs to take place. In this case the next magnet has to move into proximity of the pickup coil, so that it can begin to affect a change of magnetic field relative to the pickup coil.

The behavior of the homo polar generator sort of implies that there is another type of reset condition, one that isn't commonly known or understood. One that can take place in the presence of a constant magnetic field. This fact alone has certain implications. Perhaps the answer to this situation can be found by looking more closely at what's happening within the conductor.

According to this video every time induction takes place, the common factor is, the power pickup brushes are moving relative to the disk. Usually induction is described by magnetic fields changing relative to the conductor.

I want to use an analogy, that likens how a standard generator works, to a person rowing a boat. To set up a stroke cycle the person has to lean forward so the oars go back, and are then poised to enter the water. Then the stroke cycle begins, the paddles go into the water, the person pulls back, and when the paddles have moved forward as far as they can go they are removed from the water. While the paddles are moving in the water energy is being transferred into propulsion. At the end of the cycle a discrete amount of energy has been transferred, no more no less. The person cant just hold the paddles there and hope more energy is going to be transferred, the reset condition needs to take place.

With a standard generator a similar thing sort of happens, the magnets cant just be held over the pole of the pickup coil and then be expected to continue transferring energy into the system. The reset condition needs to take place. In this case the next magnet has to move into proximity of the pickup coil, so that it can begin to affect a change of magnetic field relative to the pickup coil.

The behavior of the homo polar generator sort of implies that there is another type of reset condition, one that isn't commonly known or understood. One that can take place in the presence of a constant magnetic field. This fact alone has certain implications. Perhaps the answer to this situation can be found by looking more closely at what's happening within the conductor.

Nice video Lotec, nice experiment!!

The only "possibility" and missing test would have been to rotate just the brushes while disc and magnet static to then note how voltage would be generated according to the rotation sense... The guy just moves brushes back-forth and stills gets a saw-tooth signal.

For close to 200 years, ever since Faraday ASSUMED that Induction was created by Conductor CUTTING the "IMAGINARY" FIELD LINES, plus then later on Lorentz considering Magnetic Fields does NOT contains ANY SPINS...got Us all to believe on this FALLACY...and -what I find even more amazing- is that no one that I know off -along this long time- have conducted simple experiments which would have RULED OUT COMPLETELY this WRONG ASSUMPTION about imaginary lines of force cutting conductors "FAIRY-TALES".

This is the ONLY REASON WHY...Science can not explain this Homopolar Generator behavior with absolutely no convincing Theories based on those "cutting lines" principles.

Fact is...Magnetic Fields DO HAVE PARTIAL SPINS, and applying it here would understand that brushes on above video, delimit a CONDUCTING PATH on the Copper Disc and NOT NECESSARILY A SOLELY CONDUCTOR, but just a PATH where induced electrons would flow outwards showing Voltage Output at scope.
1-MAGNET MOVES/DISC STATIC= V=0 ZERO VOLTAGE: Simple explanation...moving the magnet does NOT moves the Magnetic Field on this PARTICULAR GEOMETRY, where N-S AXIS is PARALLEL to SPINNING AXIS. Other words, that NOW STATIC CONDUCTIVE PATH on Disc, DEFINED between the two brushes sees NO CHANGE at all when magnet rotates on its N-S Axis.

2-DISC ROTATES/MAGNET STATIC= V><0 VOLTAGE PRESENCE depending on rotation sense: Here that CONDUCTIVE PATH, DEFINED BY BRUSHES, DOES SPIN AROUND FIELD, generating a Voltage whereas pos or neg, dependent on rotation sense...CLEARLY demonstrates that CONDUCTIVE PATH is seeing different LEVELS OF Magnetic Field SPIN or a "CHANGE" as mentioned on Faraday's Laws.
3-MAGNET+DISC ROTATES= V><0 or simply Voltage Presence: Like I have cited on #1 & #2 Cases, whether Magnet Moves or Not it is completely IRRELEVANT to Generating any Voltage, BUT ONLY RELEVANT TO THE CONDUCTIVE PATH DEFINED BY BRUSHES ROTATING.
4- MAGNET+DISC STATIC, ONLY TWO BRUSHES ROTATING= V><0 or V Presence This missing experiment on above video, except for the BACK-FORTH HAND MOVEMENT which shows an UP-DOWN Voltage Zig-Zag, WOULD HAVE BEEN THE MORE IMPORTANT OF ALL THE ABOVE!!!

Why?...Just because it CLEARLY PROVES that it is all about that CONDUCTIVE PATH DEFINED BY THE TWO BRUSHES, ROTATING, what really generates an Induction output, taking this WHOLE EXPERIMENT DOWN to a specific element DEFINED AS TOPNOTCH HERE, which eventually will throw or RULE OUT whether DISC OR MAGNET MOVES OR NOT.

On the other hand, by moving-rotating just the two brushes, this Conductive Path is the same RELATED to the TWO BRUSH POSITIONING, HOWEVER, DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF DISC METAL ARE COVERED through just the Brushes spinning on top of STATIC copper disc. And so, this FACT ALSO TAKES PLACE whenever Disc Spins while brushes are static...

Regards

Ufopolitics

__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci